August 07, 2007

To Engage or Not to Engage?
Posted by Shadi Hamid

So, there’s been a little back-and-forth between me and
Stanley Kurtz on the question of what to do about political Islam. He wrote a
two-part series “Doc
Jihad,” and “Doc
Jihad, Part II,” where he, among other things, criticized the recent policy report I wrote for PPI (full version, summary), where I advocate engaging with
the Muslim Brotherhood and other nonviolent Islamist groups. Kurtz did a
follow-up post last week, where he again criticizes me for wanting “the United States to cozy up to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Unfortunately, he at no point explains why engaging with the
Brotherhood and other mainstream Islamist parties is a bad idea. I lay the case
for engagement not only in the PPI report, but also in a similarly long piece
for Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. Taken together, these two articles attempt
to address many of the mistaken assumptions about political Islam and explain
how engagement can actually help us deflate extremism and win the war on
terrorism. In the Democracy piece, in particular, I move from narrative
to nuts-and-bolts and lay out the five components of a pro-engagement policy. I
would be interested to see Kurtz’s critique of these policy
recommendations. Instead of simply saying that dealing with the MB is a bad
idea, I wish he would tell me why it’s a bad idea.

Would Kurtz like us to continue supporting the brutal,
repressive Mubarak regime which has imprisoned and tortured thousands of
opposition activists, Islamist and secularist alike? Ayman Nour, as close to a
pro-Western liberal as you’ll find in the Middle East,
is currently languishing in jail, and the Bush administration has failed to do
or say anything of note. Now, I imagine that Kurtz’s argument will be that even
if the Egyptian regime is bad, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the MB is good. And, in
this, he is correct.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not an ideal ally. They are far from liberal, something which
I’ve noted in nearly every piece I’ve written on this topic. (It’s a different issue,
but I don’t think the Republican party is liberal either, as they refuse to ban
torture, have little respect for separation of powers, have stacked our
bureaucracy with people who put party over country, and believe in something
called the “unitary executive” which is more frightening than anything I’ve
seen the MB put out in their election programs).

But while mainstream Islamists aren't exactly liberals,
they have come a long away in recent years, and, yes, they have moderated in
both rhetoric and practice. Kurtz cites one incident in the early 1990s, which
he uses to make the broader claim that the MB is a dangerous group intent on
forcefully imposing its will on Egyptians. While I am not familiar with this
particular incident – that the MB when in control of the Doctors Syndicate
“forced union members to sign a pledge to be pious Muslims” – I am fairly certain that no
comparable incident has occurred in recent years. In any case, it was in the
mid-1990s, and not really until then, that the Brotherhood began to evolve
toward a more explicit commitment to the foundational components of democracy. The MB in 1991 is different than the MB in 2007.

Let me briefly outline some of the key markers of moderation. In 1994 and 1995, for instance, the Muslim Brotherhood
released a series of documents clarifying its position on issues of contention.
In the statement “Shura and Party Pluralism in Muslim Society,” the Brotherhood
publicly affirms its belief in popular sovereignty, calls for a "balance
of powers," and disavows all forms of political violence. Its “Statement
on Democracy” addresses the status of non-Muslim minorities: “Our position
regarding our Christian brothers in Egypt and the Arab world is
explicit, established and known: they have the same rights and duties as we
do...Whoever believes or acts otherwise is forsaken by us.”

More recently, the
Brotherhood released its 2004 reform initiative, in which it reiterates in its
most clear language to date its commitment to alternation of power, separation
of powers, the unrestricted right to form political parties, and freedom of
personal belief and opinion.

Of course, we have no way of knowing whether the MB and
other groups like it are 100% sincere in their commitment to democracy (it is impossible to prove intention). Words are not
enough; we need action. And, in this, I share Kurtz and others’ concerns about
what these groups may or may not do once in power. But this isn’t something
unique to Islamists. We should be equally concerned if “pro-West” secularists
come to power, especially considering the fact that secular parties in the
region have a shockingly bad record when it comes to upholding liberal,
democratic values. In fact, over the past five decades, the most oppressive
regimes in the Middle East have been, with very few exceptions, both secular
and “pro-West.”

The fact that many observers and policymakers are
(understandably) worried about what Islamist parties will do in power, only lends
further credence to my argument that we should begin engaging with these groups
sooner rather than later. Let us build links – and leverage – with these
parties before they come to power, not afterwards when it’s too late to exert
any influence. As I note in Democracy, “this leverage will increase our ability to hold Islamists to
their democratic commitments, and will be critical in ensuring that vital
American interests are protected when ‘friendly’ dictators are finally pushed
out of power.”

This is particularly important when it comes to a concern which, I feel, is too often neglected by those who support engaging Islamists - how to ensure Israel’s safety
and security. Guaranteeing Israel's security in a hostile regional atmosphere is a vital strategic (and moral) interest. And in any future discussions with Islamist groups, U.S. officials would need to
make clear that peaceful co-existence with Israel is something that we are not
willing to compromise on. Again, our justified fear of Islamist parties playing the
anti-Israel card only strengthens the argument for engagement. As I note in the same article, “the United States and
the international community can mitigate the risks of Islamist overreach by
providing clear incentives for Islamist moderation on [relations with
Israel] and other issues. A potential model for this type of
"enmeshing" is Turkey’s
ruling AKP, an Islamist party which has enacted a series of far-reaching
democratic reforms in order to meet requirements to enter the European
Union–and which enjoys a working relationship (and military ties) with Israel.”

More to say, but I'm going to have to wrap up: Kurtz has written very good and useful two-part series on how Islamism rose to
prominence in Egypt over the last several decades. But I would be very interested to hear him
further articulate his thoughts about what U.S.policymakers should do about the MB and other Islamist groups in today’s Middle East.

TrackBack

Comments

Good piece. Also while we may not know how the Muslim Brotherhood would handle power, I think their non-violence is a key indicator that they aren't just talk. I'm no expert on the issue at large, but I'd suspect that illiberal democratic movements that tend to be violent with power also tend to be violent while out of power.

Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy runescape . I do not know how to use the rs gold ; my friend tells me how to use. I will thank for my friends bringing me in this world. I am not regret to buy runescape money . We all love game, if you want to play it, please buy cheap rs gold and join us. Please do not hesitate to have game.

But Atlantica online Gold, MM were able to enjoy apart from other turn-based online games bring the fun, there are a lot of experience unprecedented MM awaits you to explore. At the game, people should have Atlantica Gold People that have a draw people in mid stream feeling.

Disclaimer

The opinions voiced on Democracy Arsenal are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
Read Terms of Use